Thought 3D-printed guns had to be made of plastic? Think again

Solid Concepts debuts a 3D-printed, fully metal version of the M1911 handgun.

Earlier this year, Cody Wilson and his nonprofit organization Defense Distributed created the world’s first 3D-printed semi-automatic firearm, and later, a handgun. Eight months later, another group in Austin has now created what it claims to be the world’s first 3D-printed metal gun.

“We’re proving this is possible; the technology is at a place now where we can manufacture a gun with 3D metal printing,” said Kent Firestone, vice president at Solid Concepts, in a statement on Thursday. “And we’re doing this legally. In fact, as far as we know, we’re the only 3D printing service provider with a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Now, if a qualifying customer needs a unique gun part in five days, we can deliver.”

Specifically, the gun that Solid Concepts has manufactured is the M1911, which was standard issue as a sidearm for the American military between 1911 and 1985.

“It functions beautifully: Our resident gun expert has fired 50 successful rounds and hit a few bull’s eyes at over 30 yards,” the company wrote on its blog on Thursday. “The gun is composed of 30+ 3D printed components with 17-4 Stainless Steel and Inconel 625 materials. We completed it with a Selective Laser Sintered (SLS) 3D printed hand grip, because we’re kind of crazy about 3D printing.”

But the company warned that this isn’t something that most people are going to be able to replicate at home anytime soon.

“I mentioned earlier [that] this isn’t about desktop printers, and it’s not. The industrial printer we used costs more than my college tuition (and I went to a private university), and the engineers who run our machines are top of the line; they are experts who know what they’re doing and understand 3D printing better than anyone in this business,” Solid Concepts added.

Defense Distributed's Wilson, who has since also expanded out to creating DarkWallet, a new platform for anonymous Bitcoin trading, lauds the efforts of his fellow Texans.

I don't consider this a big step over simply CNC milling a gun from a few blocks of metal. Not unless laser sintering comes down in price like thermal extrusion printers to the point where regular people can afford one. This isn't a revolution, it is an evolution.

It's rough that it takes legal, licensed gun manufacturing to make a story over 3D printing advancements (but if they're the pioneers, by all means, not hating), when the exact same tech is pretty brilliantly promising for Things Less Interesting Than Guns. 3D printing's relationship with prosthetics, for example, if only for the novelty of saying a guy printed out someone's new leg.

It's rough that it takes legal, licensed gun manufacturing to make a story over 3D printing advancements (but if they're the pioneers, by all means, not hating), when the exact same tech is pretty brilliantly promising for Things Less Interesting Than Guns. 3D printing's relationship with prosthetics, for example, if only for the novelty of saying a guy printed out someone's new leg.

++ to all the above.If people want to make guns, they still need to be gunsmiths in one way or another. That will never change. Will it become easier to use polymers and exotic processes like SLS? Of course. But DIY is still DIY.

It's not a new technology (in the realm of 3D printing), and while this may be the first fully-printed gun, equally demanding components have been produced. I know people have prototyped engine parts and the like.

And, as jandrese points out, even home CNC rigs can make a gun. They're not as efficient about it--especially barrels--as specialist equipment, but that's hardly unique.

I'm curious if the barrel is "printed"; I can't reference the links without leaving this article (weakness of Feedly). But the barrel (which includes the firing chamber) is one of the highest-stress components in a pistol, and I'm curious if they can "print" a sufficiently hard barrel.

The interesting thing is not that you can make a gun this way. If you want a gun, existing technologies (mill, lathe...) or the black market are much easier and cheaper.

The interesting thing is, that you can make a gun this way! Because it means the mechanical properties of the parts made by SLS are good enough not just for pan handles.This was probably known to people working with SLS before, but now that someone has used it for a gun and gets media coverage through that we all get to know that.

This just shows that Chris Rock was right all along. "We don't need gun control, we need BULLET CONTROL. Think about it. If a bullet cost 5000$ there would be NO MORE INNOCENT Bystanders. If someone got shot, YOU KNOW they deserved it!That brother just spent 15,000$ to kill him, he Must have done something wrong!"

The gun is 45ACP. It’s rifled and the rifling was built directly into the part – or as we like to say, “grown” into the part – using 3D Printing. This gun has NOT BEEN MACHINED. We used hand tools for some post processing (our finishers are wonderful), but we did not machine this gun. It’s born this way.

I think CNC will still be the way to go for a long time. Not only from cost but also the strength of a machined piece of steel/aluminum I'm pretty sure, is going to be much higher than anything 3D printed.

But obviously I'm not an expert in these fields so I'd like to see some numbers.

Well its interesting but given how easy it is to legally get a gun here I don't think its going to raise the same objections that the plastic gun did since it doesn't have the same security implications.

Well its interesting but given how easy it is to legally get a gun here I don't think its going to raise the same objections that the plastic gun did since it doesn't have the same security implications.

^ You raise a good point, QuattroV, in that 3D printing (in this case, laser sintering) is ideal for custom one-offs like prosthetics, and low-volume production in general.

Printing something that is already mass-produced (and is designed in a manner to make it easy to do so, to boot) is just an exercise in 3D-printing-wankery. IMO.

From the article, it sounds like their real business model is printing replacement parts for no longer manufactured firearms. This 1911 is just a proof of concept to get them some free advertising. It seems like a reasonable business model to me, although I'm curious how their prices compare to the traditional process of milling out replacements in this situation. Guns don't have that many moving parts (well, maybe the M16...) and if they're well maintained they don't tend to break very often.

This just shows that Chris Rock was right all along. "We don't need gun control, we need BULLET CONTROL. Think about it. If a bullet cost 5000$ there would be NO MORE INNOCENT Bystanders. If someone got shot, YOU KNOW they deserved it!That brother just spent 15,000$ to kill him, he Must have done something wrong!"

It would be very interesting to know what the (end user, i.e. if someone ordered this printed) cost figures would be for this. From what I know of looking into having various things 3d printed, I would assume it would eclipse a mass produced gun by quite a bit. I don't know how that would compare to hand milling the parts, though. It might actually do well compared to that.

Because if I know anything about technology, it's that it never becomes cheaper and easier to use.

It already is within reach of many people. My local maker space already has a DMLS printer, with the same process, materials and precision as used for printing the guns in the article.We could afford it because 1) it was sold used for a good price, and 2) the money was crowd-sourced from dozens of members.

...They're not as efficient about it--especially barrels--as specialist equipment, but that's hardly unique.

I'm curious if the barrel is "printed"; I can't reference the links without leaving this article (weakness of Feedly). But the barrel (which includes the firing chamber) is one of the highest-stress components in a pistol, and I'm curious if they can "print" a sufficiently hard barrel.

The only part that you would want to print or CNC yourself is the part that requires the serial number. So for example on an AR platform, people will only CNC the lower, because you can buy everything else shipped to your door as easily as a bottle of laundry detergent.

Wow, now this is cool. No more "print half a gun and add the stressed parts." Forget passing laws that require inserting a metal slug so it can be detected. Don't need to add a nail for the firing pin. Even the barrel is 3D printed. Color me impressed.

Of course, there's the little matter that the printer costs $100+K (my guess from the article). And I expect simply printing the gun costs more than buying one. This isn't going to enable any new crime, but it's a great demonstration of how the technology has progressed.

++ to all the above.If people want to make guns, they still need to be gunsmiths in one way or another. That will never change. Will it become easier to use polymers and exotic processes like SLS? Of course. But DIY is still DIY.

On the contrary, once the designs get pushed to services like Thingiverse (or a Darknet on TOR), people with plenty of money to buy these industrial machines (e.g., Mexican drug lords) won't need to buy them from the American government "Fast and Furious" programs.

This just shows that Chris Rock was right all along. "We don't need gun control, we need BULLET CONTROL. Think about it. If a bullet cost 5000$ there would be NO MORE INNOCENT Bystanders. If someone got shot, YOU KNOW they deserved it!That brother just spent 15,000$ to kill him, he Must have done something wrong!"

See a need, fill a need. Expensive ammo at stores? Start selling the molds! People who buy from stores can be traced, anyway. That's bad for criminal business.

^ You raise a good point, QuattroV, in that 3D printing (in this case, laser sintering) is ideal for custom one-offs like prosthetics, and low-volume production in general.

Printing something that is already mass-produced (and is designed in a manner to make it easy to do so, to boot) is just an exercise in 3D-printing-wankery. IMO.

It probably is. But the concept is revolutionary: You can have innocent equipment (a laser-sintering 3D printer) and pass a potentially regulated/illegal/contraband item (a gun) to it in digital form. For example, passing the 3D code across enemy lines or to individuals in regulated police states. And the printed gun appears despite previous confiscations, border searches and barriers. Brilliant. The printer is as mighty as the sword ! Now if they could just print working ammunition.

Because if I know anything about technology, it's that it never becomes cheaper and easier to use.

I note your sarcasm. However there are a great many industrial production methods that cannot be reliably recreated or scaled down for use in the home.

Anyhow, if someone is desperate to create a firearm they will find a way. A future with affordable laser sintering equipment is not the issue, as anyone with the most rudimentary tool shop knowledge can already create a zip gun.

Those with better metal working skills can use lathes, pillar drills and milling machines; As I expect custom gunsmiths currently do.

Despite metal working machines being cheaper and easier to use these days, the scars on my right hand are testament to the fact that such equipment is dangerous in the handsto the hands of amateurs. Meh. I can still count to ten....

I don't see why this is interesting. The whole "hey that's neat" factor of the recent 3d printing stuff is that it can (theoretically, and hopefully actually usably in a few years) be done at home with a printer akin to the basic paper printers we have now, and there's no element of that here.

Seems this story is basically that a manufacturing place made a new way of manufacturing metal stuff using a computer - haven't they been making machines that make machines for decades now? I might be missing something, but this really doesn't seem all that neat to me.

Chris Rock is hilarious. But just wrong. You can make your own bullets from spent shell casings easily.

Propellant manufacture would seem to be rather more difficult. If someone starts trying to manufacture nitroglycerine and other explosives, then they stand a reasonable chance of blowing themselves up.

Wow, now this is cool. No more "print half a gun and add the stressed parts." Forget passing laws that require inserting a metal slug so it can be detected. Don't need to add a nail for the firing pin. Even the barrel is 3D printed. Color me impressed.

Of course, there's the little matter that the printer costs $100+K (my guess from the article). And I expect simply printing the gun costs more than buying one. This isn't going to enable any new crime, but it's a great demonstration of how the technology has progressed.

Bring on the practical uses, looking forward to those!

Sending digital code to ships at sea to make their own parts, or to space stations and Mars explorers.

You could also mold metal gun parts from plastiic-printed parts using home equipment and methods learned in art class.

Chris Rock is hilarious. But just wrong. You can make your own bullets from spent shell casings easily.

Propellant manufacture would seem to be rather more difficult. If someone starts trying to manufacture nitroglycerine and other explosives, then they stand a reasonable chance of blowing themselves up.

Yes but gun powder isn't Nitro or TNT (although I know people who have made both way back when they were still in high school)

Chris Rock is hilarious. But just wrong. You can make your own bullets from spent shell casings easily.

Propellant manufacture would seem to be rather more difficult. If someone starts trying to manufacture nitroglycerine and other explosives, then they stand a reasonable chance of blowing themselves up.

I suspect it'll start to happen, though, and some time within the next 75 years.

At some point I'm expecting a "chemical synthesis" analog of 3d printing, where you have a bunch of molecular feedstock and you program in the mix of molecules you want and they come out. The publicized "white hat" uses will be stuff like on-demand bespoke medications, maybe molecular gastronomy, stuff like that. The unavoidable "black hat" uses will be "naughty" recreational drugs (if any remain by then), explosives, and poisons.

Propellant manufacture would seem to be rather more difficult. If someone starts trying to manufacture nitroglycerine and other explosives, then they stand a reasonable chance of blowing themselves up.

Propellants are relatively easy. Amateur fireworks folks make their own black powder safely.

It's the primers that are nasty. The darned things are intended to be shock-sensitive.

It's the primers that are nasty. The darned things are intended to be shock-sensitive.

How powerful do they really need to be? Kids in my high school used to mix up nitrogen triiodide for use in practical jokes (precisely because it was a shock-sensitive explosive).

(Sorry if my ignorance of this stuff is extreme enough to be funny. Haven't had much to do with guns since working on the "Rifle & Shotgun" merit badge as a boy scout -- I just don't like 'em, myself.)

It's rough that it takes legal, licensed gun manufacturing to make a story over 3D printing advancements (but if they're the pioneers, by all means, not hating), when the exact same tech is pretty brilliantly promising for Things Less Interesting Than Guns. 3D printing's relationship with prosthetics, for example, if only for the novelty of saying a guy printed out someone's new leg.

++ to all the above.If people want to make guns, they still need to be gunsmiths in one way or another. That will never change. Will it become easier to use polymers and exotic processes like SLS? Of course. But DIY is still DIY.

If you ever built a model battleship, you can build a gun from a kit.

If you can change a timing belt you can build a gun from a beginner's kit.

If you can put a computer or a 3d printer together, you can put most gun kits together from a kit....